Problem: Before beginning this discussion make sure you have read chapters 1-2, 7-9, 14-18 of Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men.
What do you see as the ethical implications of Browning's arguments in Ordinary Men? What does Browning's work suggest about human nature, evil, and the underlying causes of violent atrocities like the Holocaust?
What problems, if any, do you see with Browning's approach and arguments? Do you think the criticisms of Browning's work (summarized above and in the module notes) are justified?
How do you think historians and other scholars should approach a morally-charged subject like the Holocaust? To what extent should they engage in moral condemnation vs. "neutral" historical explanation? Is it possible to balance these two approaches?